DCT
1:16-cv-01762
RMH Tech LLC v. PMC Industries Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: RMH Tech LLC and Metal Roof Innovations, Ltd. (Colorado)
- Defendant: PMC Industries, Inc. (Connecticut)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sheridan Ross P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:16-cv-01762, D. Colo., 07/11/2016
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that the defendant has shipped the accused product into Colorado, offered it for sale to Colorado residents, and operates an interactive website through which the product can be purchased by customers in Colorado.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s COLOR SNAP™ roof mounting system infringes a patent related to an adjustable mounting system for attaching cross members to the standing seams of metal roofs.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical hardware for the construction industry, specifically adaptable mounting brackets that allow for flexible installation of equipment or panels onto metal roofing systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the plaintiff provided the defendant with pre-suit notice of the patent and its alleged infringement. The defendant allegedly failed to substantively respond or cease sales of the accused product, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-12-09 | ’629 Patent Priority Date |
| 2002-10-29 | ’629 Patent Issued |
| 2016-07-11 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,470,629 - "Mounting System and Adaptor Clip"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of attaching equipment or facade panels to standing seam metal roofs where the mounting points (the seams) are at non-standard or irregular intervals. Conventional systems often require costly and time-consuming custom drilling and fitting to accommodate such variations (’629 Patent, col. 1:36-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-part mounting system featuring an adaptor clip that can slide along a cross member (or "panel support member") before being fixed into position. This allows the adaptor to be precisely aligned with a roof clamp, regardless of the clamp's location along the roof seam. The core of this sliding interface is a "beaded portion" on the adaptor that engages a corresponding "channel" in the cross member, permitting movement along one axis while restricting it in others (’629 Patent, col. 2:13-18; col. 7:1-9; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The described system offers increased installation flexibility and efficiency by decoupling the fixed position of the roof clamps from the attachment points on the cross member, thereby accommodating various roof geometries without custom fabrication (’629 Patent, col. 1:57-64).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (’629 Patent, col. 10:15-33).
- The essential elements of independent claim 15 are:
- first and second mounting clamps;
- first and second mounting adaptors, each having first and second portions, with the first portion disposed on a respective mounting clamp;
- first and second fasteners anchoring the adaptors to the clamps;
- a cross member; and
- first and second means for detachably interconnecting the cross member with the second portion of the adaptors.
- The complaint notes that this assertion is "Without limitation as to the claims to be asserted in this action," reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶14).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The COLOR SNAP™ product line (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
The COLOR SNAP™ product is a mounting system used for installing items on metal roofs (Compl. ¶17). The complaint provides an annotated photograph of the accused system, identifying its components as "mounting clamps" (Item A), "adapters" (Item B) with distinct portions (Items C and D), "fasteners" (Item E), and a "cross member" (Item F) (Compl. p. 5). The complaint alleges that these components are assembled to secure the cross member to a roof via the clamps and that the system functions by "detachably interconnect[ing]" the cross member with the adapters (Compl. ¶¶ 17-21). The complaint alleges the product is sold and offered for sale throughout the United States (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’629 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| first and second mounting clamps; | The COLOR SNAP™ product includes components identified as "first and second mounting clamps (see Items A in the picture below)" (Compl. p. 5). | ¶17 | col. 4:6-7 |
| first and second mounting adaptors, wherein each of said first and second mounting adaptors comprises first and second mounting adaptor portions... | The accused product includes "first and second adapters having first and second adapter portions (see Items B, C & D, respectively, in the above photo)" (Compl. p. 5). | ¶18 | col. 5:56-58 |
| wherein said first mounting adaptor portion of said first mounting adaptor is disposed on said first mounting clamp, and wherein said first mounting adaptor portion...is disposed on said second...clamp | The complaint alleges that "the first portion (C) of each adapter (B) is disposed on each of the first and second clamps (A)" (Compl. p. 5). | ¶18 | col. 4:8-10 |
| first and second fasteners that anchor said first adaptor portion of said first and second mounting adaptors, respectively, to said first and second mounting clamps, respectively; | The accused system includes "first and second fasteners (see Items E in photo above) that anchor the first and second mounting adapters (B) to the first and second clamps (A)" (Compl. p. 5). | ¶19 | col. 4:14-18 |
| a cross member; | The accused system includes a component identified as "a cross member (F)" (Compl. p. 5). | ¶20 | col. 4:5-6 |
| and first and second means for detachably interconnecting said cross member with said second adaptor portion of said first and second mounting adaptors, respectively. | The accused system includes a means for interconnecting the "cross member (F) with the second adapter portion (D) of the mounting adapters (B)," which the complaint alleges operates like the patent. | ¶21 | col. 7:1-9 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The final limitation of claim 15 is a "means-plus-function" element under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is limited to the specific structure disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the "detachably interconnecting" function, and its structural equivalents. A central question will be whether the accused product's interconnection mechanism—alleged to involve "trapping a portion of the cross member" (Compl. ¶21)—is structurally equivalent to the patent's disclosed "beaded portion" (312) engaging a "channel portion" (204) (’629 Patent, col. 7:1-9).
- Technical Questions: What is the precise mechanical structure of the interface between the COLOR SNAP™ cross member (F) and its adapter's "second portion" (D)? The complaint's visual evidence shows the components in an assembled state (Compl. p. 5), but does not provide a cross-sectional view. The infringement analysis will depend on evidence establishing whether that interface is structurally the same as, or equivalent to, the specific bead-and-channel configuration described in the ’629 patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "means for detachably interconnecting said cross member with said second adaptor portion"
- Context and Importance: This term is drafted in means-plus-function format, making its construction pivotal to the infringement analysis. The scope of this limitation is not the plain meaning of the words, but is instead confined to the specific "corresponding structure" described in the patent's specification and its equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome of the infringement case will likely depend on whether the accused product's structure is legally equivalent to the patent's disclosed structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope may point to general language describing the function, such as providing an "interface between the panel support member 108 and the mounting clamp 120" that allows for slidable movement (’629 Patent, col. 4:9-14). However, the law of claim construction for means-plus-function terms directs the inquiry to specific structures, not just functions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly discloses the structure corresponding to this function. It describes a "beaded portion 312" of the mounting adaptor that is received by a "first channel portion 204" of the cross member, creating a slidable engagement (’629 Patent, col. 7:1-9; Figs. 1-3). The scope of the claim term will likely be construed as this specific bead-and-channel structure and its legal equivalents.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by "encouraging [customers'] use and installation of the product on standing seams of metal roofs" (Compl. ¶25).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit notice. The complaint states that Plaintiff "put PMC on notice of its ’629 Patent and of its infringement" and that PMC failed to cease its allegedly infringing activities after receiving this notice (Compl. ¶23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and structural equivalence: under the rules for means-plus-function claiming, is the mechanism used by the accused COLOR SNAP™ product to connect its cross member and adaptor structurally equivalent to the specific "bead-and-channel" architecture disclosed in the ’629 patent's specification? The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely turn on the court's construction of this limitation and the subsequent factual comparison.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will the parties present to prove or disprove structural equivalence? The dispute will move beyond high-level photographs to a detailed analysis of engineering drawings, product cross-sections, and expert testimony to compare the precise form and function of the accused product's interconnecting components against the structure disclosed in the patent.